Tech Matchups: Gateway Load Balancer vs NLB
Overview
Gateway Load Balancer (GWLB) integrates third-party virtual appliances (e.g., firewalls, IDS) into VPC traffic flows, operating at Layer 3 for seamless inspection.
Network Load Balancer (NLB) distributes Layer 4 (TCP/UDP) traffic across targets with ultra-low latency, ideal for high-performance applications.
Both manage traffic: GWLB for appliance integration, NLB for direct load balancing.
Section 1 - Functionality and Traffic Handling
GWLB routes traffic through third-party appliances using GENEVE encapsulation—e.g., sending VPC traffic to a Palo Alto firewall for inspection before forwarding. Deployed with endpoint services.
NLB balances TCP/UDP traffic directly to targets—e.g., distributing API requests across EC2 instances in a private subnet. Supports static IPs and cross-zone balancing.
Scenario: GWLB for firewall inspection; NLB for high-throughput database traffic.
Section 2 - Use Cases and Integration
GWLB is designed for security and monitoring—e.g., routing all VPC ingress/egress through a Check Point IDS for threat detection. Integrates with appliances via AWS Marketplace.
NLB suits performance-critical apps—e.g., handling millions of TCP connections for a real-time analytics platform. Integrates with EC2, ECS, or Lambda via target groups.
Scenario: GWLB ensures compliance with security policies; NLB powers a low-latency gaming backend. GWLB is appliance-focused; NLB is application-focused.
Section 3 - Cost and Scalability
GWLB charges per hour ($0.023 in us-east-1) and per GLCU ($0.005 per GLCU-hour). Example: 1TB/month with moderate GLCUs costs ~$28 (hourly + GLCU). Appliance costs extra.
NLB charges per hour ($0.0225) and per LCU ($0.004 per LCU-hour). Example: 1TB/month with moderate LCUs costs ~$25.20 (hourly + LCU). Data transfer adds $0.01/GB in-VPC.
GWLB scales with appliance capacity; NLB scales to millions of connections with low latency.
Scenario: GWLB for security-heavy workloads; NLB for high-traffic apps.
Section 4 - Performance and Features
GWLB prioritizes appliance integration, adding slight latency (e.g., ~5-10ms) due to GENEVE encapsulation and appliance processing. Supports health checks and VPC endpoint services.
NLB offers ultra-low latency (e.g., <1ms) with features like static IPs, TLS termination, and cross-zone load balancing. Handles sudden traffic spikes efficiently.
Scenario: GWLB for inline threat inspection; NLB for real-time TCP traffic. GWLB trades latency for security; NLB optimizes for speed.
Section 5 - Comparison Table
| Aspect | Gateway Load Balancer | Network Load Balancer |
|---|---|---|
| Layer | Layer 3 (GENEVE) | Layer 4 (TCP/UDP) |
| Purpose | Appliance Integration | Traffic Distribution |
| Cost | Hourly + GLCU | Hourly + LCU |
| Latency | Higher (~5-10ms) | Ultra-Low (<1ms) |
| Best For | Security Appliances | High-Performance Apps |
GWLB for security integration, NLB for performance. Combine for secure, fast apps.
Conclusion
Gateway Load Balancer and Network Load Balancer address distinct networking needs. GWLB enables seamless integration of third-party appliances, ideal for security and monitoring in regulated environments. NLB delivers ultra-low-latency Layer 4 load balancing, perfect for high-performance applications.
Weigh purpose (security vs. performance), latency (higher vs. ultra-low), and cost (GLCU vs. LCU). Use GWLB for appliance-heavy workloads, NLB for direct traffic distribution—or combine: GWLB for security inspection, NLB for application delivery.